Most of the country looks pretty red on this map. Perhaps you need to find another way to express your point.
I know that you know this, but that's by location, not by population. I guess it depends on how clearly one defines what they mean by "most of the country" - most of the people or most of the land?
That sounds pretty Trumpian. We don't elect Presidents using a national popular vote. Win the electoral college and you win...who cares about popularity? Republicans understand that. Democrats appear to struggle...which is why they lose.
No argument. But the point was that even though Republicans keep getting elected, most of the country doesn't want them. That's not how we hope that the republic works.
Most of the country looks pretty red on this map. Perhaps you need to find another way to express your point.
We don't elect Presidents using a national popular vote. Win the electoral college and you win...who cares about popularity? Republicans understand that. Democrats appear to struggle...which is why they lose.
No argument. But the point was that even though Republicans keep getting elected, most of the country doesn't want them. That's not how we hope that the republic works.
Unless you count popular vote. During a span of 32 years from 1988 to 2020, Republicans and Democrats will have split White House occupancy 50/50, even though Republicans only won the popular vote twice (1988, 2004), while Democrats won the popular vote FIVE times (1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012).
So, yes, Republicans were in office - against the wishes of most of the country.
That sounds pretty Trumpian.
We don't elect Presidents using a national popular vote. Win the electoral college and you win...who cares about popularity? Republicans understand that. Democrats appear to struggle...which is why they lose.
That's exactly what we should be doing. We didn't forget about Watergate or Iran-contra just because the President's term was over. Do something wrong, and deserve the punishment/shame.
And, yes, the next President has very very little chance of being a Republican. Moreover, when's the last time they had a good candidate? Reminder: previous Republican presidents were Trump, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon. No real icons in there.
I'd say Reagan was pretty "iconic" - depending on one's definition, I guess. He convincingly won two elections and is among the most popular former Presidents in most polls.
Unless you count popular vote. During a span of 32 years from 1988 to 2020, Republicans and Democrats will have split White House occupancy 50/50, even though Republicans only won the popular vote twice (1988, 2004), while Democrats won the popular vote FIVE times (1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012).
So, yes, Republicans were in office - against the wishes of most of the country.
Maybe true, but that represents 32 of the 54 years since Nixon won in 1968... so as bad as they were, the voters determined that the Dems were worse.
Unless you count popular vote. During a span of 32 years from 1988 to 2020, Republicans and Democrats will have split White House occupancy 50/50, even though Republicans only won the popular vote twice (1988, 2004), while Democrats won the popular vote FIVE times (1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012).
So, yes, Republicans were in office - against the wishes of most of the country.
So go ahead and fixate on Trump while we get Biden's successor ready.
That's exactly what we should be doing. We didn't forget about Watergate or Iran-contra just because the President's term was over. Do something wrong, and deserve the punishment/shame.
And, yes, the next President has very very little chance of being a Republican. Moreover, when's the last time they had a good candidate? Reminder: previous Republican presidents were Trump, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon. No real icons in there.
From your article ... There is a chance that Trump’s omission may have been legal, nonetheless. Although officials have to list personal loans on their financial disclosures, the law does not require them to include loans to their companies, unless they are personally liable for the loans. details, details ...
Never stop defending your savior, kurt.
Not defending him. Just pointing out the weakness in your article.
Look, spud. Trump does not need my defense, nor do I offer any if you carefully read what I say. At this point I'm merely pointing out how badly constructed yours and other's arguments against him are.
He certainly is not doing himself any favors as it stands these days. He will end up marginalizing himself if he continues on his present course. If I were you, I would be more worrying about who comes next after Trump. But evidently, TDS is both incurable and terminal. So go ahead and fixate on Trump while we get Biden's successor ready.
There is a chance that Trumpâs omission may have been legal, nonetheless. Although officials have to list personal loans on their financial disclosures, the law does not require them to include loans to their companies, unless they are personally liable for the loans.
There is a chance that Trump’s omission may have been legal, nonetheless. Although officials have to list personal loans on their financial disclosures, the law does not require them to include loans to their companies, unless they are personally liable for the loans.
Old news but can you believe the scandal about Hunter Biden and the laptop? OMG!
FTA: "The trademarks approved for Ivanka Trump-branded products â which also include nursing homes, sausage casing, handbags, shoes, wedding dresses and jewelry â were first applied for in 2016."
He's just a very busy guy who forgot to tell people about $20M and then rushed to eliminate the exposure after the election. Just the MSM attacking a great businessman.
The real story: Have you seen what the DNC did to pressure Twitter about Hunter Biden! US history is forever changed because Hunter made $3M by sitting on the board of Burisma!
Never mind how Trump ruined our international relations, destroyed the unity of the US, wants to revoke to Constitution so he can have more time making money, committed unquestioned nepotism during his single term, and refused to repudiate violent racists when he had the chance(s)... something something Hunter's laptop.
He's just a very busy guy who forgot to tell people about $20M and then rushed to eliminate the exposure after the election. Just the MSM attacking a great businessman.
The real story: Have you seen what the DNC did to pressure Twitter about Hunter Biden! US history is forever changed because Hunter made $3M by sitting on the board of Burisma!
The panelâs decision removed a major obstacle that had hindered the Justice Departmentâs investigation into Mr. Trumpâs handling of sensitive government documents.
All three of the judges on the panel that ruled on Thursday were appointees of Republican presidents â and two of them, Andrew L. Brasher and Britt Grant, had been placed on the bench by Mr. Trump himself.
â-
She should be removed for incompetence.
"The appeals court was sharply critical of the decision in September by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee, to intervene in the case."
